Ryan T. Anderson,
31, researches and writes about marriage and religious liberty as the William
E. Simon Fellow in Religion and a Free Society at the Heritage Foundation in
Washington, DC. He is also the editor of Public Discourse, the online journal of
the Witherspoon Institute in Princeton, NJ.

Ryan T. Anderson

He has emerged as a
leading defender of traditional marriage before audiences on college and law
school campuses, as well as in the mainstream media (he recently sparred with CNN host Piers
Morgan and lesbian financial advisor and motivational speaker Suze Orman, for
example).

Anderson was born
and raised in Baltimore, and, while he is Catholic, his parents sent him and
his four brothers to a Quaker school, “for reasons we still don’t fully
understand,” he chuckles. At an early age he found his views often at
odds with those of his classmates, such as on the issue of abortion. He
said, “Being in a minority status makes you examine your positions more thoroughly.”

Anderson: As we argue in our book, it is unique
because it involves a union of hearts, minds, and bodies of a man and a woman,
at all levels of their beings, in an act that has the potential to produce new
human life. Marital relationships are not only emotional, but are ordered
towards bearing and rearing children.

If we reject the
understanding that marriage should be between one man and one woman, other
questions arise. Why, for example, should we limit marriage to two people?
What about “thruples” [a three-person “couple”]? What’s so magical
about the number two? Perhaps someone believes their marriage would be
enhanced with the introduction of a third party. If we don’t insist that
marriage is a distinct, bodily union between one man and one woman, then we
leave it up to the spouses to decide.

Also, why should
marriage be permanent? Emotions come and go, so some people might prefer
their marriage to be temporary.

CWR: Polls say younger people are more open to
same-sex marriage than the overall population. Why do you think many in your
generation have this perspective?

Anderson: Because they didn’t experience a strong
marriage culture; they are the first generation that came of age in the
aftermath of no-fault divorce and the sexual revolution. They don’t understand
marriage and didn’t witness strong marriages growing up.

Also, there is a
tremendous amount of propaganda being put out by cultural elites, aided by
prominent figures such as Hollywood or sports stars, who advocate a
redefinition of marriage. Anyone who challenges this view is subject to
attack. After I did the Piers Morgan interview, I had people I went to high
school with looking me up through Facebook and attacking me. Many who say
they’re for tolerant attitudes are often the most intolerant themselves.

CWR: When you leave the stage or when the
television cameras are turned off and people come speak to you privately, what
sort of things do they say?

Anderson: Many people, both on my side and on the
opposing side, admit they’ve never heard my arguments before. Some say
that they support the traditional definition of marriage because the Bible or
their church tells them so, and now they’ve heard me articulate it from a
public policy perspective in a way that makes sense.

Others will tell me
that they disagree with me, but they don’t have a response to what I’ve said.
They’re beholden to an ideology. They’ve never heard my arguments,
but still know I’m wrong. They’re strong ideologues.

CWR: For centuries, traditional marriage has
been universally understood and accepted by cultures throughout the world.
For a little more than a decade now, there has been an aggressive push by
some to change its definition. Why do you think that is?

Anderson: Some people equate support for marriage as
between a man and a woman as being “anti-gay” bigotry. They think the
only way to combat this bigotry is through redefining the institution of
marriage. They think, “To protect gays and lesbians we must be in favor
of redefining marriage.”

But they’re
separate issues. There are a host of public policy solutions we can adopt
to address these concerns commonly raised by those who support redefining
marriage. We can consider adjustments to public policy, for example, in
regards to hospital visitation rights or inheritance laws for unmarried
persons, whether they have same-sex attractions or not.

In reality, the
push to redefine marriage is more about putting a government stamp of approval
on same-sex relations instead of trying to ensure that a child grows up with a
mother and father. As the 1970s and 80s began to demonstrate, men and
women don’t necessarily stick together over the long haul even if they have a
child together. The law should encourage them to do so for the benefit of
their children. If we don’t, the social costs run high, with broken
hearts and broken homes. The data shows that children who grow up without
their mother and father suffer a greater incidence of a variety of social
problems.

The whole argument
has become a “gay rights” issue, when it should be about whether or not
marriage matters.

CWR: Some politicians uncomfortable about the
issue suggest that the state “should get out of the marriage business.”

Anderson: But the state has to be in the marriage
business, because nine months after a man and a woman unite, often a new human
being comes into the world. Someone has a responsibility for that new
life: should it be the parents or the government?

The government can
try to pick up the pieces of a broken marriage culture through the introduction
of a variety of welfare programs, or the government can limit itself by
recognizing the institution of marriage in a civil society. It can adopt
laws to encourage life-long marriage, and thus safeguard the rights of
children. We’re not forcing marriage upon anyone, but holding it up as an
ideal, because every child needs a mom and a dad and it’s best that they be
married to each other.

If the state “gets
out of the marriage business,” it will lead to a further erosion of the
marriage culture, with negative effects on our society. Children raised
outside of marriage, for example, have an 82 percent greater chance of living
in poverty. If we care about social justice, we need to understand that
the love, protection, guidance, and support of mother and father, not more
government programs, are what a child needs.

CWR: You’ve referenced a divide between
“cultural elites” and “ordinary Americans.” What do you mean by this?

Anderson: Ordinary Americans understand that men and
women are different. They unite in the sex act, producing children, who
need mothers and fathers. They recognize that children do best when they
have a mom and a dad.

The opposing side
believes that gender is a social construct, that men and women are
interchangeable. They think that all that matters is the feelings of the
adults. If that is all that marriage is, then it looks like bigotry to
deny marriage to same-sex couples.

Ordinary Americans
don’t buy into this. They can see in everyday life that men and women are
different. Say a parent and son were wrestling, being physical in a
non-violent way. Who is that parent more likely to be, the mom or the
dad? Everyone knows it will be the dad.

The social science
data supports the belief that men and women are different, but ordinary
Americans know this from everyday experience. It’s common sense.

About the Author

Jim Graves

Jim Graves is a Catholic writer living in Newport Beach, California.

All comments posted at Catholic World Report are moderated. While vigorous debate is welcome and encouraged, please note that in the interest of maintaining a civilized and helpful level of discussion, comments containing obscene language or personal attacks—or those that are deemed by the editors to be needlessly combative and inflammatory—will not be published. Thank you.